Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions in Australia

Within the context of a legacy of relatively high but fluctuating public trust (see Section 1.1.1 in Chapter 1), the Australian Public Service (APS) Reform programme seeks to deepen trust in government and public administration. The four APS Reform priority areas are for an APS that embodies integrity in everything it does; that puts people and business at the centre of policy and services; that is a model employer; and that has the capability to do its job well. This chapter provides evidence on current levels of trust and their evolution between 2021 and 2023, as well as an overview of the drivers of trust in public institutions in Australia that can help different levels of government and other public institutions identify opportunities for policy action to enhance trust.

This chapter consists of three sections: The first and second sections describe trust levels in different institutions and their evolution between 2021 and 2023 as measured by the OECD Trust survey; followed by an overview of differences in trust levels in the federal government between groups with different backgrounds. The third section discusses how perceptions of government competencies and values have evolved and provides insights into how these are associated with levels of trust in different public institutions. This analysis, which serves to identify the drivers of trust, sets the stage for the subsequent two chapters, which analyse expectations and perceptions of government competencies and values in more depth to highlight opportunities for policy action to enhance trust.

Trust levels in public institutions and perceptions of public governance performance can be affected by recent economic, social and political events experienced by the population.

In late 2023, when the OECD Trust Survey data were collected, Australians1 were overwhelmingly concerned about inflation. Nearly three in four people in Australia (74%) named this topic as among the top three issues their country faced, compared to around six in ten (59%) people on average across the OECD (Figure ‎2.1). These concerns were rooted in inflation rates in 2022 and 2023 that far outpaced those experienced in any year since the early 1990s (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2024[4]; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018[5]). These price increases were due in part to supply disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, which have since eased, in part to increased service and housing costs (Bullock, 2024[6]). Housing, in turn, is the second-most-frequently selected issue, mentioned by 39% of Australians, compared to 23% of people across the OECD. These topics are followed by healthcare and other essential services, selected by 30% of Australians (OECD average: 28%); crime and violence, selected by 28% of Australians (OECD average: 30%) and climate change and other environmental issues, selected by 25% of Australians (OECD average: 21%).

Within this context, a comparatively high and rising share of Australians trusted the federal government. In 2023, 46% of Australians had high or moderately high trust in the federal government (selecting a response option from 6 to 10 on a 0-to-10-point scale), compared to an average of 39% across the 30 participating OECD countries (Figure ‎2.2). 38% of adults in Australia and 44% across the OECD had low or no trust in their national/federal government (corresponding to a response from 0 to 4); and 15% in Australia and 16% across the OECD provided a neutral response (corresponding to a response of 5).

The picture of higher trust in the federal government in Australia compared to the OECD average in 2023 contrasts with the situation in 2021. The share with high or moderately high trust in the federal government rose by eight percentage points over the period, taking their share from slightly below to markedly above the OECD average (Figure ‎2.3). As discussed in Chapter 1, the process of going to the polls, in particular, if leading to a change in political leadership, can affect trust. The 2022 federal election may thus have had a positive impact on trust levels, reflected not only in rising trust in the federal government but also in other institutions. In contrast, across the eighteen OECD countries with available data for both years, the average share of the population with high or moderately high trust in the national government dropped by two percentage points.

Trust in other public institutions likewise increased in Australia from 2021 to 2023. And as in most OECD countries, people in Australia place the higher trust in law-and-order institutions than in institutions that are perceived as more political, with trust in the public service and local government falling in the middle of the spectrum.

Regarding ‘law-and-order’ institutions according to the OECD Trust Survey, in 2023, more than two-thirds of people in Australia (68%) had high or moderately high trust in the police, compared to 63% on average across the OECD (Figure ‎2.4). This percentage even slightly exceeds the share who trust other people (65%). Close to six in ten people in Australia (59%) have high or moderately high trust in courts and the judicial system, compared to 54% across the OECD. Results from the June 2023 wave of the Trust and Satisfaction in Australian Democracy survey also find that the police and courts are among the most trusted institutions (Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Public Service Commission, 2024[7]). The Trust and Satisfaction in Australian Democracy Survey moreover reveals that ambulance, fire and other emergency services public health institutions and the Australian Defence Forces are even more trusted than the police. Ombudsmen, the Australian Electoral Commission and the Australian Human Rights Commission are likewise highly trusted, though less so than the police.2

Institutions which are key in providing public services and with which individuals are in more frequent contact are likewise more frequently trusted than the federal government, but less so than law-and-order institutions. In particular, in 2023, one in two people in Australia had high or moderately high trust in the local government (51%) and the regional and federal civil service (50%) (Figure ‎2.4).

An equal percentage of 46% trust the national and their respective state or territory government. The assessment of the federal and state/territory governments are frequently closely linked: nearly 90% of respondents who either had high or moderately high trust or low and no trust in their national government had a corresponding trust level in their state or territory government. One potential may be that people are not always clear about the responsibilities of different levels of government and public administration within a complex federal system.

Finally, across the OECD and in Australia, institutions that some might associate with partisanship and political conflict are the least trusted. In particular, 43% of people in Australia, compared to an OECD average of 37%, had high or moderately high trust in the federal parliament; and only slightly more than one-third – 34%, compared to 24% across the OECD – had high or moderately high trust in political parties (Figure ‎2.4).

Similar to trust in the federal parliament, other institutions likewise gained in perceived trustworthiness since 2021. These increases were generally more pronounced for institutions that were typically less trusted, ranging from nine percentage points for political parties, 8 percentage points for local government, 6 percentage points for parliament and five percentage points for courts, to four percentage points for the police and federal civil service (Figure ‎2.4). These common movements in trust suggest that there is a certain amount of spill-over in trust levels between institutions, meaning that if a rising share of people find one public institution trustworthy, this can colour off on their perceptions of other institutions. Nevertheless, the markedly varying trust levels in different institutions also show that many people’s assessment of different institutions are independent of each other.

Differences in trust by region appear to be smaller in Australia than in other OECD countries. The gap between the most trust and least trusting regions (in terms of trust in the national government) is smaller in Australia than in other OECD countries with the exceptions of Finland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic – notably all much smaller countries. However, it is possible that geographic disaggregation at a more granular level would have revealed more pronounced geographic differences. Trust in all levels of government is highest in the combined region of the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales (Figure ‎2.5). Trust in the state/territory government varies most between regions, and trust in local government the least. Interestingly, while trust in the federal and state government is substantially lower in Queensland than in the other regions, when it comes to trust in local government, it is almost on part with the level observed in New South Wales/ACT.

While the share with high or moderately high trust in the federal government diverges between different population groups, and while this divergence even increased in several cases between 2021 and 2023, trust in the federal government rose among almost all population groups over this timeframe.

The perception of lacking political agency is the individual characteristic associated with the lowest levels of trust in the federal government. But individuals who feel financial stress, who are less educated or who identify as belonging to a discriminated-against group as well as women are also less likely to have high or moderately high trust in the federal government.

The gap in the share of people with high or moderately high trust in the federal government (simply called ‘trust gap’ from now on) between people who feel that people like them have a say in what government does – meaning those that perceive that they have political agency - and those who do not is one of the largest in the OECD, while the partisan trust gap – between those who have voted for the current government and those who didn’t - is in line with the OECD average. In 2023, fewer than one in five people (18%) among those who do not feel that people like them have a say in what government does had high or moderately high trust in the national government, compared to 70% among those who feel like they had a say (Figure ‎2.6). This 52 percentage-point trust gap exceeds the 47 percentage-point OECD average. There are only six other OECD countries (Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany and New Zealand) with equal or larger political agency trust gaps. In contrast, the trust gap between those who voted or would have voted for the currently ruling party and those who did not or would not have voted for it is equal to 27 percentage points, which corresponds exactly to the average partisan trust gap across the 30 participating OECD countries.

Turning to trust gaps by socio-economic background, individuals who have financial concerns or who self-identify as belonging to a group that is discriminated against have lower levels of trust in the national government than those who do not. In Australia, the share with high or moderately high trust in the federal government is twenty percentage points higher among those who do not have financial concerns for their household over the coming years compared to those who do, while this financial security trust gap has an average of seventeen percentage points across the OECD. The financial trust gap in Australia is thus ten percentage points higher than the trust gap between those who identify as belonging to a group that is discriminated against and those who do not (10 percentage points in Australia, compared to 14 percentage points across the OECD). People who identify as being part of a group that is discriminated against may include Indigenous Australians, but this cannot be verified based on the OECD Trust Survey data. Therefore, it is not possible to identify the size of the trust gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, be it based on OECD or other data sources (see Box ‎2.2).

Trust survey data suggest a relatively large trust gap between men and women. Men in Australia on average are more likely to have high or moderately high trust in the federal government (54%) than women do (38%). This gender trust gap is above the 7 percentage point average gender trust gap across OECD countries. Moreover, it is above the gender trust gap measured by the November wave of the Trust and Satisfaction in Australian Democracy survey, which was equal to 9 percentage points. Methodological differences, including a different response scale and a sampling methodology relying on different quotas, can contribute to differences in the measured trust gap. Nevertheless, both surveys come to the conclusion that women on average have significantly lower levels of trust in the federal government than men do.

In Australia, trust in the federal government by age group follows the shape of an arc; while across the OECD, it instead has the shape of stairs. Around 44% of people aged 18-29 and people aged 50+ have high or moderately high trust in the federal government; while across the OECD, among younger people, trust levels tend to be seven percentage points lower than among 50+ year olds. However, people aged 30 to 49 are more likely to trust the federal government, with 49% having high or moderately high trust. Across the OECD, the share of trusting the national/federal government in this age group instead generally lies between trust rates among younger and older people.

Trust gaps in other institutions often follow similar patterns as trust gaps in the national government, but there are a few exceptions. The most notable one concerns trust in police: Among people who identify as belonging to a group that is discriminated against and young people, the share with high or moderately high trust is 18 and 22 percentage points lower than among those who do not identify as belonging to a discriminated group and 50+ year olds (Figure ‎2.7). These trust gaps are thus considerably larger than the discrimination (-10 percentage points) and age (+1 percentage point) trust gaps in the federal government. In contrast, the gap in trust in the police by financial concerns (12 percentage points) and by gender (5 percentage points) are smaller than the respective federal government trust gaps.

Trust gaps in local government tend to be smaller, with the exception of age and discrimination status. Indeed, trust in the local government is 4 percentage points higher among young people and people who feel they are part of a discriminated against group, compared to the 1 percentage point federal government trust gap. In contrast, younger people have lower trust in the Australian Public Service (-6 percentage points relative to 50+ year olds), while differences in trust in the APS by self-identified discrimination and education status are similar to the federal government trust gap.

While some trust gaps increased between 2021 and 2023, almost all population groups became more trusting in the federal government over this time frame. The gender, financial concerns and political agency gaps rose, in some cases drastically, while the education trust gap remained relatively constant, and the age and partisan trust gaps declined. But the reason for any increasing trust gaps lies mostly in the disproportionately higher increase in trust among groups that previously had higher trust levels, rather than in falling or stagnating trust levels among the less-trusting groups.

The widening of the gender and financial concerns trust gaps arose because increases in trust among one group were much more significant than in the other. For example, the widening of the gender trust gap, from 3 to 16 percentage points, was due to trust in the federal government rising by only 1 percentage point among women but 15 percentage points among men (Figure ‎2.8). A majority of men in Australia (54%) now have high or moderately high trust in the federal government. Similarly, the increase in the trust gap between those who expressed financial concerns and those who did not, from 8 to 20 percentage points, was driven by a 17 percentage point increase in trust among those without financial concerns, contrasted with a more moderate increase of 6 percentage points among those who express financial concerns (Figure ‎2.8). Over the same period, the share who are somewhat or very concerned about their household’s finances rose from 67 to 79%.

In contrast, part of the increase in the trust gap by perceived political agency is due to dropping trust among those who perceive that they lack political agency. The growing trust gap between those who believe that people like them have a say in what government does and those who do not, from 43 to 52 percentage points, can be attributed to a small drop in trust among those who do not believe they have a say (-3 percentage points) and an increase among those who believe they have a say (+6 percentage points) (Figure ‎2.9). In fact, the drop in the share with high or moderately high trust in the federal government among those who do not feel they have a say and among those who do not feel confident to participate in politics (-2 percentage points) are the only drops in trust observed among any of the analysed socio-economic, demographic, partisanship and political agency groups.

However, it also needs to be noted that much like the identification of financial stress, the group of people who perceive that they have a say in what government does is far from stable over time. In fact, between 2021 and 2023, the share of Australians who felt like the political system did not let people like them have a say dropped from 48 to 36%. One of the factors that could have contributed to this shift might have been the recent federal elections, which could have renewed people’s perception of political agency. The smaller remaining group of those who do not perceive that they have political agency could feel particularly alienated from the political system, which would make the slight drop in the share with high or moderately high trust in the federal government among them unsurprising.

The gap in trust in the federal government between those who did not complete upper secondary education and those who have post-secondary degree remained almost unchanged. In 2021, trust among university graduates and other post-secondary degree holders was 15 percentage points higher than among those who did not graduate from high school; and in 2023, this difference was 14 percentage points. Interestingly, trust rose far more drastically in the group with an upper secondary degree (+13 percentage points) then among those who did not graduate from upper secondary school (+5 percentage points) and those who have a post-secondary degree (+4 percentage points) (Figure ‎2.10).

Finally, the age and partisan trust gaps declined between 2021and 2023, thanks to increases in trust among young people and among those who did not vote for the incumbent government. In 2021, the share of 18-29 year olds who had high or moderately high trust in the national government was nine percentage points lower than among people aged 50 and above. In 2023, this gap had completely disappeared, thanks to the share with high or moderately high trust rising by 12 percentage points among young people and middle-aged people compared to 4 percentage points among older people (Figure ‎2.10). Over the two years, the partisan trust gap dropped from 35 to 27 percentage points. Trust among those who voted, or would have voted, for the government in the most recent election, which referred to the May 2019 election in the 2021 survey wave and the May 2022 election in the 2023 survey wave, rose by 3 percentage points. Among those who did not or would not have voted for the current government, the share with high or moderately high trust even rose by 11 percentage points (Figure ‎2.8).

The OECD Trust Survey distinguishes different categories of public governance drivers of trust, ranging from the degree to which people expect and perceive institutions to be reliable3 and responsive in formulating and implementing policies and services to their perceptions of how much institutions uphold the values of fairness, integrity and openness and how they address global and complex issues (see Box ‎2.1 and Table ‎2.2). In Australia, a majority of people in 2021 and 2023 perceived institutions as fair and reliable, while the share who provide positive responses to questions related to institutional openness only surpassed 50% in 2023 (Figure ‎2.11). Australians’ perceptions of the capacity of government to address global issues – in this case, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions -, to be responsive and to act with integrity are less positive in comparison to the other public governance drivers; but more positive than average perceptions across the OECD.

The remainder of the chapter focuses on how these perceptions of public governance affect people’s trust in the federal and local government, the federal parliament and the Australian Public Service. These relationships are analysed through regression analysis, which makes it possible to assess how people’s views of multiple public governance drivers, coupled with their personal characteristics, relate to differences in trust in public institutions, and to identify those factors that have a positive association with trust. More precisely, the analysis reveals how an individual's likelihood of having high or moderately high trust in a public institution increases with a positive perception of a given public governance driver, while holding individuals’ perceptions of the other public governance dimensions and their socio-economic and political backgrounds constant. The analysis presented here follows a similar methodology to that implemented in the 2023 OECD Trust Survey Report (OECD, 2024[11]) (Box ‎2.3). While there are methodological limitations that mean that we cannot identify whether a change in perception causes trust levels to change, the regression analysis is nonetheless a useful tool to understand which public governance drivers have the strongest association with trust when controlling for other variables that are known to affect trust. Results from this analysis offer insights into possible avenues to strengthening trust.

The analysis of the drivers of trust in Australia suggests four main results (Table ‎2.1):

• First, the factors associated with higher levels of trust differ across institutions, suggesting different policies might be needed to reinforce trust in different institutions.

• Second, several drivers related to perceived government competencies, most notably government using evidence for decision making, satisfaction with administrative services, and public agencies’ capacity to innovate for improving services, are strongly associated to increased trust in different public institutions. People who express higher satisfaction with administrative services are more likely to place trust in all public institutions in Australia; and the use of innovation is a driver of trust in both the federal government and parliament.

• Third, perceptions that government institutions act in the best interest of society are strongly associated with trust in the federal and local government, while the perception that the APS looks out for the long-term interests of society and gives government ministers honest advice are strongly related to trust in the APS.

• Fourth, several indicators related to government fairness and integrity are related to trust in the federal parliament and government, while openness is an important driver of trust in local government. People who believe that government adequately balances between the interests of current and future generations tend to be more trusting of government and parliament; those who find it likely that government withstands undue private influence are more likely to trust government; and those who find it likely that parliament holds government accountable are more likely to trust parliament.

People who believe that government institutions act in the best interest of society naturally have a higher propensity of having high or moderately high trust in the national government, but several factors related primarily to government competencies, also have a positive association with trust. In particular, people who are more confident that government institutions act in the best interest of society are 7.4 percentage points more likely to have high or moderately high trust in the federal government. The belief that institutions are responsive to feedback and to evidence also has a positive relationship with trust: A perceived higher likelihood that the government would adopt innovative ideas if they can improve public service is associated with a 6.4 percentage points higher likelihood of trusting the government. This variable is also the most important driver of trust in the federal government in a pooled analysis of 2021 and 2023 data. Confidence that government takes decisions based on the best available evidence is associated with a similar increase in trust (6.2 percentage points). Finally, an above-average satisfaction with administrative services is associated with a 5.4 percentage points higher likelihood of trusting government.4

Positive perceptions that government decision making is evidence-informed likewise is an important driver of trust in the Australian parliament, but so are a few other factors related to reliability, responsiveness, fairness and integrity. People with an elevated perception that government relies on the best available evidence, statistics and data when making decisions are 8.0 percentage points more likely to have high or moderately high trust in the national parliament. A possible explanation is that individuals who find it likely that the executive government relies on evidence in decision-making likewise find it likely that the legislature does so, and therefore have higher trust in Parliament. Higher confidence that parliament holds government accountable and that innovative ideas to improve public services would be adopted (both with average marginal effects of 5.8), that government balances adequately between the interests of current and future generations (5.2), higher satisfaction with administrative services (4.5), and government institutions acting in the best interest of society (3.3) are all associated with an increased likelihood of trusting parliament.

The single most important driver in trust in the local government in Australia is the perceived likelihood that citizens would have an opportunity to voice their opinion if a decision affecting their local community were to be made by the local government (openness). Citizens reporting a higher perceived likelihood also are 9.4 percentage points more likely to have high or moderately high trust in the local government. Confidence in government acting in the best interest of society (average marginal effect: 5.9) and satisfaction with administrative services (5.5) also matter. Finally, the perception that government would improve a public service if there were many complaints has a moderately high association with trust in the local government, with an average marginal effect of 4.4 percentage points. These results are very similar to an analysis pooling result from both survey rounds.

In contrast to the results on the drivers of trust in local government, the two most important identified drivers of trust in the Australian Public Service in 2023 are variables that were only included in the Australian trust study. Confidence in the Australian Public Service looking out for the long-term interest of society is associated with an increased likelihood of having high or moderately high trust in the civil service of 8.1 percentage points, and confidence that APS gives government honest advice has an average marginal effect of 6.8 percentage points. Above-average satisfaction with administrative services is associated with a 5.5 percentage points higher likelihood of trust in APS, and the legitimate use of personal data with a 4.7 percentage points higher likelihood. The analysis pooling data from both survey rounds confirms satisfaction with administrative services to be a key driver, but also identifies other drivers such as the perceived likelihood that the governments would improve public services if many people complained.

When comparing the main drivers of trust in public institutions in Australia with those across the OECD, there are some notable similarities but also differences. However, this comparison should be treated carefully. First, the sample on which the Australian analysis is based is much smaller than the sample for the cross-country analysis, making it more difficult to identify relationships that are smaller as statistically significant.5 Second, the Australian analysis includes variables that are not included in the cross-country analysis. Given that different variables are correlated, this can lead to changes in the estimated coefficients as well as whether individual variables are dropped in the Australian analysis, which is implemented using stepwise selection.

Putting these caveats aside, the comparison shows a few interesting patterns concerning trust in Australian institutions:

• Trust in institutions in Australia are more influenced by positive perceptions of day-to-day reliability than is the case across the OECD on average. In both Australia and across the OECD, a positive perception of government taking decisions based on the best available evidence is an important driver of trust in the national government and parliament; though in Australia, the estimated impact on trust in the national parliament is nearly twice as large as across the OECD. Confidence that public agencies use data only for legitimate aims is a driver of trust in the national government and civil service across both the OECD and in Australia, with larger average marginal effects in Australia; but on the other hand, it is a driver of trust in local government and the national parliament across the OECD, but not in Australia. In contrast, a more positive perception of the emergency preparedness of government institutions is associated with higher trust levels in all public institutions across the OECD, but not with higher trust in any public institution in Australia.

• Responsiveness and openness to innovation is seen as important to build trust in Australia. Satisfaction with administrative services is an important driver of trust in all institutions everywhere, but in Australia, the impact is more pronounced, particularly for trust in the federal government and parliament A higher perceived likelihood that institutions would adopt innovative ideas if it could improve services is associated with higher levels of trust in the federal government and parliament in Australia, but not across the OECD; and a positive perception that services are improved following complaints appears to have a stronger association with trust in local government in Australia compared to the OECD average.

• Perceived fairness in day-to-day interactions between citizens and their government matter more across the OECD than in Australia, while the perceived fairness of complex policy decision making matter in Australia as well as across the OECD. Positive perceptions of fairness in public services and benefits are not associated with trust in any public institutions in Australia, while they have a smaller positive relationship with trust in local government and the civil service across the OECD. A higher perceived likelihood that government adequately balances the interests of current and future generations has a relationship with trust in the national government and parliament that is at the same order of magnitude in Australia and across the OECD, even if the exact point estimates differ. However, the perceived fairness in parliament decisions between different regions or groups in society has a positive association with trust in the national government and parliament across the OECD, but not in Australia.

• Similarly, perceived integrity in decision making on complex policy issues plays more of a role in Australia compared to the OECD, while perceived petty corruption plays less of a role. In addition to the Australia-specific integrity variables, government’s withstanding of undue private influence that could be harmful to society at a whole is positively related to trust in the national/federal government in Australia and across the OECD. Parliament holding government accountable is related to trust in the national parliament everywhere, but only to trust in national and local government across the OECD but not in Australia. A higher perceived likelihood that a public employee would refuse a bribe to speed up service access is only (slightly) related to trust in the national civil service across the OECD, but not in Australia.

• Across both the OECD and in Australia, openness to inputs on local decisions is an important driver of trust in local government.

• Perceptions of political agency have less of an influence on trust in institutions in Australia than across the OECD. The perception of having a say in what government does, which is a driver of trust in all institutions in the OECD-wide analysis and is associated with the largest trust gap when comparing trust levels across groups, is not related to trust in any institution in Australia only. Confidence to participate in politics, however, has a positive relationship with trust in the federal government.

The regression analyses also reveal that an important part, but by no means the entirety, of the observed differences in trust levels between different population groups (Figure ‎2.6) are due to different perceptions of the public governance drivers and socio-economic characteristics. For example, in the regression analysis, the difference in trust in the national government between those who voted for the current government and those who did not remains statistically significant and practically relevant. But the average marginal effect of 6 percentage points is much smaller than the 27 percentage points unadjusted trust gap. More educated people also remain 6 percentage points more likely to have high or moderately high trust, but this average marginal effect is only statistically significant at the .1 level and again smaller than the 14 percentage points unadjusted trust gap. The average marginal effect on being a woman is not statistically significant, and neither are household financial concerns nor being a member of a discriminated-against group.

[4] Australian Bureau of Statistics (2024), Consumer Price Index, Australia, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/price-indexes-and-inflation/consumer-price-index-australia/jun-quarter-2024> (accessed on 4 October 2024).

[5] Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018), 70 Years of Inflation in Australia, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/research/70-years-inflation-australia.

[1] Brezzi, M. et al. (2021), “An updated OECD framework on drivers of trust in public institutions to meet current and future challenges”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 48, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b6c5478c-en.

[6] Bullock, M. (2024), The Costs of High Inflation, Reserve Bank of Australia, https://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2024/sp-gov-2024-09-05.html.

[7] Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Public Service Commission (2024), Trust and Satisfaction in Australian Democracy: 2023 National Survey.

[9] Galinsky, A. et al. (2019), “Surveying Strategies for Hard-to-Survey Populations: Lessons From the Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander National Health Interview Survey”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 109/10, pp. 1384-1391, https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2019.305217.

[2] Nguyen, D. et al. (2022), “Survey design and technical documentation supporting the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Government Institutions”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 53, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6f6093c5-en.

[11] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.

[3] OECD (2024), OECD Trust Survey design and technical documentation - Annex to the OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions - 2024 results, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/support-materials/2024/07/oecd-survey-on-drivers-of-trust-in-public-institutions-2024-results_eeb36452/2023%20Trust%20Survey%20-%20Technical%20annex.pdf.

[8] Stoker, G. et al. (2017), The impact of anti-politics on policymaking: Does lack of political agency matter?, https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/conference/papers/2017/Stoker%20Jennings%20Evans%20and%20Halupka%20PSA%20Glasow%202017%20FINAL_0.pdf.

[10] Tourangeau, R. (2019), “Surveying Hard-to-Survey Populations Despite the Unfavorable Environment”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 109/10, pp. 1326-1327, https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2019.305300.